"Counterfactuals" in XAI aren't counterfactuals. Nor are "explanations" explanations. The whole field is basically, "you dont like these associative stats? here

"Counterfactuals" in XAI aren't counterfactuals. Nor are "explanations" explanations. The whole field is basically, "you dont like these associative stats? here, what about these other ones?" I oscillate between reading computer scientists here as liars (using this language to disguise that they cannot offer explanations, etc.), morons (who do not know the basic meaning of the terms they use) or pseudoscientists (people with no care to know, and no interest in honest communication). In the end, the answer is perhaps much more disappointing: they're engineers with little interest in, or training around, anything beyond the most naive operational definition that suits their interest at any given moment. However we should note how duplicitious this becomes when aligned with hype, regulatory demands, and funding models.